UPDATE: Thanks to your calls, the motion to close debate on this nomination was defeated by a vote of 51-41 (60 votes were required).

March 3, 2013

Tomorrow, Monday, March 4th, the Senate is scheduled to vote on a cloture motion on Caitlin Halligan, another of President Obama’s radical judicial nominees. The Senate rejected Halligan’s nomination in the last Congress, but President Obama renominated her to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. We need you to call your Senators today and tell them to vote NO on Caitlin Halligan!

Here are a few of the many reasons Senators should vote NO on Halligan:

Same Sex Marriage

As Solicitor General of New York, Halligan wrote an opinion arguing for same sex marriage, even though the state's domestic law required that marriage licenses only be issued to opposite sex couples. Halligan declared that observing the statute as written raised, "serious Constitutional concerns."

Radical Pro-Abortion Advocate

As New York’s Solicitor General, Halligan joined an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the National Organization of Women’s (NOW) suit attempting to use Civil racketeering charges to shut down abortion clinic protests nationwide. The importance of Halligan’s joining the amicus brief cannot be understated. One of the key purposes of the brief was to persuade the Court to rely on New York’s expanded definition of property and how property can be obtained through extortion, a point she hoped that the weight of her office as New York’s Solicitor General would carry. NOW’s and Halligan’s arguments were so radical, they were rejected by an 8-1 margin. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arguably the Court’s most liberal Justice wrote, “The court is rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO’s domain further by endorsing the expansive definition of ‘extortion.”

Racial Preferences

Halligan has joined briefs supporting racial quotas at universities. Three out of four of the policies she supported were later declared unconstitutional.

Second Amendment Rights

As the National Rifle Association declared in its letter of opposition to Halligan's confirmation as New York's Solicitor General, she strongly supported "inside and outside the courtroom" the State of New York's activist efforts to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns. When Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to protect manufacturers from such frivolous suits, Halligan signed onto a friend of the Court brief arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

Detention of Enemy Combatants

Halligan was a member of a bar committee that issued a report claiming it is unconstitutional for the United States to detain enemy combatants. During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Halligan tried to distance herself from this report; however, she also signed onto a friend of the court brief arguing the same conclusion in a case involving such detention.

Halligan is a radical activist, who has viewed the federal court system as a vehicle for making, not interpreting, policy. We need you to tell your Senators to vote NO on her confirmation tomorrow at noon. Nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals are often subject to higher scrutiny than other courts. Also, unlike other Courts, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not have an overwhelming caseload. In fact, there are currently more judges than necessary to manage the number of cases pending. Thus, there is no reason to rush to confirm an unfit, radical nominee. Cloture requires a 60 vote threshold, so it is still possible to stop this nominee!

Click the red arrow to select any of the following text for inclusion in your message.

As Solicitor General of New York, Halligan wrote an opinion arguing for same sex marriage.

Halligan has joined briefs supporting racial quotas at universities.

Halligan supported the State of New York's activist efforts to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns.

When Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to protect manufacturers from such frivolous suits, Halligan signed onto a friend of the Court brief arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

Halligan issued a report claiming it is unconstitutional for the United States to detain enemy combatants and she also signed onto a friend of the court brief arguing the same conclusion.